Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did any witness write about what they saw, or get interviewed about it, years later?
    I know quite a few Titanic survivors were interviewed, well after WW2.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • The Unsinkable Molly Brown - Trailer - YouTube
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

        I suppose the caveat should be "without other corroborating evidence", which is what's entirely missing with all these memoirs. As Trevor says, they're clearly not singing from the same sheet.
        Yes, not an accurate source of information, but also not intentionally fiction.
        Memoirs are not Autobiographies, the former are just recollections as you sit at your writing desk. The latter requires factual research for times, dates & places. Recollections are by defacto vague as to essential details, you know what happened but the specifics may be out by days or certain names are close but not precise.

        What Macnaghten wrote in 1994 (the Memorandum) was written while he was still on the force, any records were still available. Even his own Memoir (Days of my Years) was not written long after he retired, but the same year 1913, published in 1914.
        His paragraphs on the ripper murders are so detailed he most likely worked from reports. It is likely the most accurate summary of the murders written by a police official.

        So, can we conclude that there was a conspiracy, engineered across departments from working Bobbies up to the most senior level, where they each pulled a suspects name at random from a peaked cap and co-operated thereafter to mislead the inquisitive while protecting their inside knowledge, or, as I suspect, they didn't have a clue?
        No conspiracy.

        Personally, I like to believe the Swanson Marginalia is genuine. That doesn't make it correct. It's an insight into his recollections, but a solution to the problem it ain't. Does make you wonder about the name Kosminski though. Mentioned by Swanson and McNaughten (who wasn't there at the time, I know), but still not matching up factually? Although it would make Swanson a reasonable candidate for sourcing the MM.
        Yes, the Marginalia is genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • TLSOMOL is also genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
            TLSOMOL is also genuine, but too inaccurate for use as a viable reference.
            I think I'd prefer TOSOMLL, but it has yet to be written. I heard those meetings of the Protestant Truth Society could be a real gas.

            Comment


            • The investigators were human and so it reasonable to believe that all might have had some prejudices or presuppositions to begin with. If you believe the Whitechapel Murderer must have been (or even probably was) a foreigner that is a starting point from which you interpret the evidence. Or he must have been a Jew. Or he must have had medical knowledge or must have had a history of prior violence. Take your pick. It would have to have influenced them to some degree. Probably some more than others.

              The other factor would be that they probably focused on some suspects more than others in the course of their investigation. It would not be surprising if their most favored suspect was the one that they had investigated the most.

              c.d.

              Comment


              • You are far too forgiving, C.D.

                On at least three occasions in TLSOMOL, Sir Robert Anderson told elaborate and demonstrable lies. So, why should we believe him about the Polish Jew?
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  You are far too forgiving, C.D.

                  On at least three occasions in TLSOMOL, Sir Robert Anderson told elaborate and demonstrable lies. So, why should we believe him about the Polish Jew?
                  Hello Simon.

                  I was speaking of the investigators in general not anyone specifically. Just because we can demonstrate that someone has told a lie or lies it does not therefore necessarily follow that everything they say is a lie. Anderson simply could have been mistaken or honestly believed what he stated without sufficient evidence to back it up.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • Hi c.d.,

                    "Anderson simply could have been mistaken or honestly believed what he stated without sufficient evidence to back it up."

                    Of which particular instance were you thinking?

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      If Swanson didn't pen the marginalia, is the reference to the 'seaside home' weirdly specific? Kosminski, yeah, could have come from a book, the lunatic theory etc, but why place an identification at the seaside home?
                      For me this represents a red flag too. This ID would be a significant milestone in the investigation, and would be about a killer who raised the bar so high that his acts reverberated in newspapers around the world for months. Why would this be taking place at something which by its very name suggests a Rest or Retirement Home? You would think Jack the Ripper would be held in the most secure place they had.

                      I think the fact that all the statements do not match each other indicates there was no "official position" that they were to follow, or to be all in agreement with, which then suggests that some were either out of the loop, or that most if not all were just relating their own opinions, fabricated or not. The issue to me is there....were they fabricated?

                      One last thing....if they were just giving their own opinions, then interesting they were varied in terms of basic suspect profiles. You would think that if they all shared the same data that at the very least a probable profile would be uniformly accepted.

                      I think that's one reason why they may have been intentionally misrepresented opinions...which may clear Anderson a bit for his overt Anti-Semitic opinions.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                        On at least three occasions in TLSOMOL, Sir Robert Anderson told elaborate and demonstrable lies.
                        Huh? These have apparently escaped me. Please elaborate, it would be much appreciated.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post


                          I think that's one reason why they may have been intentionally misrepresented opinions...which may clear Anderson a bit for his overt Anti-Semitic opinions.
                          I'm not sure which overtly anti-Semitic opinions you are referring to. One thing Anderson was not, is anti-Semitic.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post

                            I'm not sure which overtly anti-Semitic opinions you are referring to. One thing Anderson was not, is anti-Semitic.
                            "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." When confronting the suspect at the Seaside Home with a witness he refused to identify the man because he was"one of his kind".....what does that sound like? His "kind"? Dehumanizing the person?

                            These are but a few of Andersons reckless and revealing remarks.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post

                              I'm not sure which overtly anti-Semitic opinions you are referring to. One thing Anderson was not, is anti-Semitic.
                              Jewish Chronical, March 11, 1910.

                              "
                              IN THE COMMUNAL ARMCHAIR.
                              THE RIPPER CRIMES AND SIR ROBERT ANDERSON.
                              By Mentor.





                              I have read the interview with a representative of the Globe which Sir Robert Anderson accorded that paper in order to reply to my observations upon what he said in Blackwood's Magazine concerning the Jack the Ripper crimes. The editor of the JEWISH CHRONICLE has also been so good as to send for my perusal Sir Robert Anderson's letter to him, which appears in these columns, on the same subject. With great deference to Sir Robert, it appears to me that he misses the whole point of my complaint against what he wrote. I did not so much object to his saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, though so particular a friend of our people would have been well-advised, knowing the peculiar condition in which we are situated, and the prejudice that is constantly simmering against us, had he kept the fact to himself. No good purpose was served by revealing it. It would have sufficed had he said that he was satisfied the murderer was discovered.

                              As I pointed out, the creature whom Sir Robert believes to have been the author of the heinous crimes was a lunatic - obviously his brain virulently diseased - so that if he was a Jew, however regrettable it may be that our people produced such an abnormality, in that there does not lie the aspersion. What I objected to - and pace Sir Robert Anderson's explanations still do - in his Blackwood article, is that Jews who knew that "Jack the Ripper" had done his foul deeds, shielded him from the police, and guarded him so that he could continue his horrible career, just because he was a Jew. This was the aspersion to which I referred and about which I notice Sir Robert says nothing. Of course, when Sir Robert says that the man he means was "proved" to be the murderer, and that upon that point he spoke facts, he also ignores the somewhat important matter that the man was never put upon his trial. Knowing what I do, I would hesitate to brand even such a creature as Sir Robert describes as the author of the Ripper crimes upon the very strongest evidence short of a conviction after due trial. I wonder whether the circumstance I am about to mention was brought to Sir Robert Anderson's notice.

                              Before the Ripper crimes took place there came into my hands a book which had been sent to me by the author, whom I had known since he was a little child. The book, if I remember aright, was printed by a provincial printer and was issued anonymously. The young man, whose first effort it was, had always been a strange, weird, dreamy sort of an individual. I confess that when I received it I merely glanced through its pages and wrote the writer something complimentary. I recollect that the story the book told appeared to me then to be mere extravagancies of a highly imaginative character, and seemed to have resulted from the author having dived deeper into the "Gehenna" of modern Babylon than was good for one of his years, especially as the "Gehenna" district he chose to explore was the most sordid and filthy it was possible to find. I put the book aside and though no more of it till the Ripper crimes were setting the town in panic. Then I recollected that its author had prophesied that such crimes would take place and gave details of happenings, in local, in method and in manner, which convinced me could not be accounted to the long arm of coincidence when they actually took place.

                              The very streets in which the murders took place, the exact class of victim are all set down with weird accuracy. I read the book carefully, I re-read it, and the more I studied it the more did the horrible conviction grow upon me that it was possible the young man who had written it - a young Jew - had become mad and that the author of the book might be the author of the Ripper crimes. I consulted a literary friend of mine of great experience and he said it was "impossible" - I remember his repeating the word three times, each with growing emphasis - "impossible" that anyone, especially a raw youth, should so accurately have forecasted such outrages by someone else. The home of my young acquaintance was in a northern town, and enquiries I set on foot elicited the fact that while the Ripper crimes were in progress he was away from his house - in London. Enquiry at his hotel brought me the news that he invariably went out late at night, and did not return till the small hours. I am afraid I had little doubt that my "theory" about the Whitechapel crimes was correct. I am happy to think I was quite wrong. I communicated to the Scotland Yard authorities all I knew - although I was a Jew and the one I suspected was a Jew too. I sent them the book. I took care to tell them that the youth had always been strange in manner. After some days the authorities assured me there was nothing in my "theory," and that they had convinced themselves that all that was in the book was purely imaginary and coincidental! I was naturally much relieved, though to this day my suspicion, formed I am bound to say upon some apparent substance, is a really painful memory. My only complaint against Scotland Yard in the matter was that they kept the book, and I could never get it from them or - from anyone else! But I believe a copy exists in one of our public libraries.

                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • SRA was not anti-Semitic?

                                That will come as a shock to nobody.

                                Witness how closely SRA allied himself with the authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X